If Star Trek does get a new show, what are some of the things this show would need to do and need to avoid? I think a new Star Trek series would need some sort of serialized plot, most of the best TV shows out there are serialized and I think Star Trek would to do that to fit in with the expectations of today's audience. Also I think there should be way less technobabble with this show, people want to see the heroes win because of intelligence, grit and determination, not have them spout science like non sense that let's them pull out some deus ex machnia. Also this show needs to do something different from previous Star Trek shows, the last couple of Star trek shows felt like copies of TNG, rather then something new. TV has changed a lot since 1987, just copying the TNG formula doesn't work any more. Now this new show shouldn't be completely different from the previous, but it should have its own look and feel. There is no point of creating a new Star Trek show if its going to be another TNG clone. Edit: Also stronger characters and characterization. Take advantage of an ensemble cast and don't have characters who are one dimensional and contribute nothing to the plot, like Harry Kim for example. Each character should contribute to the show and if a character is not working, kill that character off or write them out of the show. Also the characters should develop through out the series, not remain the same from the first episode to the last episode.
A new Star Trek show needs to go back to the 24th century and take off where TNG, DS9 and Voyager ended. No more recycling of Kirk, Spock and the other TOS characters. TOS was a great show. Let it rest in peace and create something new instead
I disagree. Get input from the fans. Write everything said on a board. Point to it and say "THIS is what we will not do".
What it needs to do is be a financial success. It could be 100% nothing any of us want and still sail along just fine. What I'd like it to do is any or all of the below: 1. Return to the Space Cop idea of TOS. The Enterprise crew is supposed to be spending part of its time being the cop on the beat, patrolling the wild fringes of the Federation to chase away the Doomsday Machines and flying fried eggs, quelling insane asylum rebellions and outfoxing the Klingons with massive tribble infestations. 2. Go back to ENT and do it right: Birth of the Federation. No time travel booshwah. 3. Post-Dominion-War series. Okay I guess #2 and #3 are mutually incompatible. I think I like #1 best anyway. However, I doubt that any of those ideas will be the financial success that we need on TV. Maybe if TNT picked them up...but more likely, it would need to be on FX, AMC, HBO or Showtime, and in that case, we're far more likely to get Justified in Space, which won't resemble what we're used to seeing, but could be awesome, as long as we're willing to expand our definition of Star Trek. What should not happen: SyFy getting its mitts on Star Trek. They would just create something cheap and dumb. I'd rather see a premium cable channel shape Star Trek into something their audiences would like. I bet a lot of Trekkies would like it, too. The others can have fun complaining. Every place I can envision Star Trek being a success on TV is also a place where all the dramas are serialized due to the expectations of the audience. So that's a given. If Star Trek gets back on TV, it can't be episodic. I doubt it can even be partly episodic. I wouldn't mind a mixed format at all, but it's more important that it fit into the ecosystem of wherever it's being shown so that audience won't reject it. Same holds true for "not doing TNG over again," paying more attention to character arcs, etc. That's gotta happen in any case. Just look at shows like Justified, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, etc. The way to get Star Trek back on TV is to shoehorn it into that mold, and bring it up to the level of those shows. I don't think it's impossible in the least, but it's going to be a big departure from what we're used to. They need to ignore us and pay attention to the audience they need to cater to, namely, the audience of the channel where their show is appearing. There's no Star Trek Channel. Maybe some of us overlap into the relevant audience - I watch AMC and FX, but don't subscribe to Showtime or HBO for instance - but if they're on FX, they need to cater to the FX audience, etc. That is the audience who will make or break the show. Trekkies will watch in any case.
Trek's problems are largely self-inflicted. Who else can be blamed apart from the production staff for Voyager's problems? I liked Voyager, it was a good show (not great like TNG/DS9) but as aforecited it was the production staff who were culpable. And Enterprise? Again, production staff, nobody else.
I think the best thing they can do for any new series is to keep Berman and Braga as far from at is as possible. I may be in the minority here, but Star Trek definitely needs new blood in the creation department. Keep Michael Westmore however. But, could you image the aliens if Tom Savini was involved...?
The problem was never Braga but his evil alter ego Berman being in charge. Braga should be the first person hired to a new Star Trek project assuming of course he is not allowed to take control which is a big assumption considering his credentials. He was one of the best things about Trek. Micheal Piller's open submission policy didn't hurt either. He generously brought in the likes of Hillery Bader and all the outside writers That made TNG great. DS9 closed their doors and we got refried Grillka and more Ferengi stories. Voyager had great episodic stories once again because Piller got out of his own way and wasn't a power hungry glory seeker like the rest of them, though unfortunately even Braga to a certain extent. Braga was the baby with the bathwater.
The only thing a new Star Trek show really needs to do is capture a big enough audience that pleases the television studio or network that's airing it. That has less to do with premise and setting and more to do with the writing and casting, IMO.
You'll definitely get your wish there. Why would CBS re-hire them for a new show? Most likely, a new show would happen if someone with serious clout (JJ Abrams, Bryan Fuller, Seth McFarlane, etc) makes a case for it, and comes up with a new approach that convinces CBS that the mistakes of the past won't be re-created.
Sounds almost as if you are saying it should be a bit more like DSN. I think most of us would agree they devopled there characters well, most contributed to the overall story in one or another. Whilst it did have its treknobabble moments they weren't as bad compared to the lies of VOY
DS9 fits in with modern TV conventions more then the other shows, though I think a modern Star Trek show should combine elements from TOS, TNG and DS9, while adding some new things in as well.
Oh I agree, I think part of the problem with VOY and ENT is that they tried to be too much like TNG rather than trying something different.
Well thing is, I think the things I mentioned in my first post are necessary for a new Star Trek show to be a financial success and these things have to do with writing more then anything. A new Star Trek show should try to fit in with TV conventions of today, not the 60s or the 80s. I actually think this the golden age of television, on cable we have more quality TV now then in the past, but Star Trek to get in on this age it has to do something bold and not have the next show be another TNG clone.
For what it is worth: 1) They should do their best to keep within an established continuity and keep discrepancies down to a reasonable minimum (after all, mistakes can and do happen). 2) Keep the premise (whatever they decide) simple and effective. Don't try to be all things to all audiences, but know what and who they are aiming for. 3) Chemistry: focus on a few characters and not an ensemble cast. otherwise it will get unwieldy. 4) Be fresh and use a new concept, as well as some new stories. We don't need a rehash of Kirk, nor do we need to see the revamped version of "Spock's brain".
Get Abrams, Orci, etc. involved...Have a new show, new characters, different ship (U.S.S. Hood, U.S.S. Faragut for example) set in Abramsverse (as it's called). Star Trek 2009 has attracted a lot of people who weren't really into Star Trek to begin with. In that case, people may watch just because they liked the 2009 film. I believe it work along with all the other points that have been mentioned already...Nero pretty much single handedly laid waste to the whole (as far as we know) Starfleet armada. It would make sense with a newly built starship and fresh crew going off on and to who knows where. In my humble opinion an Abramsverse set series is what would work now. The eposidic idea is spot on...I would love to see a Lost and/or Fringe style Star Trek series. Stand alone episodes just don't work in today's tv.
I don't care who is in it, what time it is set, if it's set on the Enterprise...just make sure that it gets back to the basics of what Star Trek is about. Bottom line: Gimmie the same kinda hope for the future that TOS did. Show us our social problems and tell us it is all going to be solved in the future. And put the story first. I don't care if you run the Enterprise on a clothesline across the studio floor, just TELL ME A GOOD STORY. And my own personal bias on this: give it to Rod. I think the kid can do it.
~gives Anji a cookie~ You know that feeling when you throw up in your mouth a little bit, I just had that, now.
There is no proven correlation between people who go to see a summer sci fi fx heavy blockbuster, and people who watch space opera on tv. In fact, there is every indication that there is no correlation. So the "fans" who went to the movie don't matter, the non-existent people watching space opera on TV do. Finally, CBS is doing fairly well with its standalone procedurals, while Fringe is about to be cancelled. Don't confuse what you like in a TV show with what the average US viewer likes in a TV show.